We should all be working for the common good, isn't that what we are taught ? In order to do that we would need a common goal. Does the United States of America have a common goal ? If so, just what would that goal be ? Remember the common good includes everybody, not the things that you want on a personal level. So just what is that common good, the goal we are striving mightily to reach ? Has it remained unchanged since the beginning ? That goal being to live free ! And just what are we trying to be free from ? Oppression is the answer. We want to be free from oppression. When we are denied the things we want we label that oppression. At least that is what we call it now, but I say that wasn't always so. There was a time in America when we call that temperance. Temperance is a personal action, a moderation or restraint from doing whatever we feel, when we feel like doing it. The reason for our temperance was a simple one, it was for the common good. Personal needs and desires were set aside in favor of the common good.
As I often pontificate, you can not legislate morality. It is morality that establishes the common good, the common goal. That is why religion plays such an important role in establishing an identity. Although it is deeply denied and argued that the United States is not a Christian nation I beg to differ. We most certainly are and always have been. We must remember that even the founding fathers were men and politicians to boot. The politicians and lawyers haven't changed all that much over the last two hundred years. Laws have been written, mostly to whose benefit ? Were they for the common good ? Certainly seems that way on the surface of things and I do believe that is the way it started out. The Constitution and the Bill or Rights are pretty much self explanatory in my opinion. Of course the lawyers have been making a living off of interpreting those documents ever since. That is one thing that will never change. What do lawyers do ? They argue, that is their sole occupation. Over time they have even managed to convince most of us how educated they are, learned is the term they like to utilize. I also suspect it is the reason they like to use Latin terms a lot, keep us all confused. The fact is, those universal truths that lawyers like to argue about have remained unchanged since the ancient people wrote them down, in Latin. The only thing that has changed is the way they are interpreted. Yes, that is what it says but that isn't what it means being at the core of all this. I write this not to disparage the profession of Attorney but merely to point out something I have observed.
The purpose of a lawyer is to argue. Well the goal is to win that argument on the behalf of your client. One method used is to cite examples from the past. Precedents I think they call them. The argument being that is the way it worked before, and so should work that way now. It is usually pretty tough to overturn a precedent. About the only way to do that is to show the injustice in that precedent. Injustice is tied to morality. Somehow the attorney has to display some quality that shows his side of the argument is the only moral choice. Morality and justice ? Aren't they one and the same ? I believe that they are. So how can I win my case ? I can do so only by the absence of a moral precedent ! That can only be accomplished by the absence of religious belief. And it is that action that I see taking place in America right now. The removal of morality. It has always been there, that is why we swear upon the Bible isn't it ? " I swear to tell the truth so help me god ! " Why, because God is the final judge, the final authority on our morality. Yes and now it is acceptable to substitute the word swear with affirm. Some were offended by using the word swear, it was argued, on religious grounds. I don't swear ! And now I see the removal of all moral precedents as the agenda. That is how we can win the argument. The question being, is it for the common good ? And I have to answer with a resounding, no.
Did we ever have a common goal, this land we call America ? I'd say we did indeed. That goal was to live free from oppression. The goal wasn't to just do whatever we felt like doing. The goal wasn't for life to be fair, that was to left to providence. No, we were to live a temperate life. Each man was to progress according to his own efforts. Each man was to work for the common good. Charity was a moral action, not a judicial one. You can no more legislate charity than you can morality. Both are tied to religious belief. It has always been in the Gods we choose, and the manner in which we worship them that nations found a commonalty. History is the precedent. If there is a complete absence of religion can we expect a different result ? Truth is you can't legislate faith or belief. What we really need to do is decide. Sadly I can't see that happening anytime soon. It hasn't happened in thousands of years, at least not on a global scale, but perhaps it will one day. Maybe that world will be called America. It's a beautiful dream isn't it ?
As I often pontificate, you can not legislate morality. It is morality that establishes the common good, the common goal. That is why religion plays such an important role in establishing an identity. Although it is deeply denied and argued that the United States is not a Christian nation I beg to differ. We most certainly are and always have been. We must remember that even the founding fathers were men and politicians to boot. The politicians and lawyers haven't changed all that much over the last two hundred years. Laws have been written, mostly to whose benefit ? Were they for the common good ? Certainly seems that way on the surface of things and I do believe that is the way it started out. The Constitution and the Bill or Rights are pretty much self explanatory in my opinion. Of course the lawyers have been making a living off of interpreting those documents ever since. That is one thing that will never change. What do lawyers do ? They argue, that is their sole occupation. Over time they have even managed to convince most of us how educated they are, learned is the term they like to utilize. I also suspect it is the reason they like to use Latin terms a lot, keep us all confused. The fact is, those universal truths that lawyers like to argue about have remained unchanged since the ancient people wrote them down, in Latin. The only thing that has changed is the way they are interpreted. Yes, that is what it says but that isn't what it means being at the core of all this. I write this not to disparage the profession of Attorney but merely to point out something I have observed.
The purpose of a lawyer is to argue. Well the goal is to win that argument on the behalf of your client. One method used is to cite examples from the past. Precedents I think they call them. The argument being that is the way it worked before, and so should work that way now. It is usually pretty tough to overturn a precedent. About the only way to do that is to show the injustice in that precedent. Injustice is tied to morality. Somehow the attorney has to display some quality that shows his side of the argument is the only moral choice. Morality and justice ? Aren't they one and the same ? I believe that they are. So how can I win my case ? I can do so only by the absence of a moral precedent ! That can only be accomplished by the absence of religious belief. And it is that action that I see taking place in America right now. The removal of morality. It has always been there, that is why we swear upon the Bible isn't it ? " I swear to tell the truth so help me god ! " Why, because God is the final judge, the final authority on our morality. Yes and now it is acceptable to substitute the word swear with affirm. Some were offended by using the word swear, it was argued, on religious grounds. I don't swear ! And now I see the removal of all moral precedents as the agenda. That is how we can win the argument. The question being, is it for the common good ? And I have to answer with a resounding, no.
Did we ever have a common goal, this land we call America ? I'd say we did indeed. That goal was to live free from oppression. The goal wasn't to just do whatever we felt like doing. The goal wasn't for life to be fair, that was to left to providence. No, we were to live a temperate life. Each man was to progress according to his own efforts. Each man was to work for the common good. Charity was a moral action, not a judicial one. You can no more legislate charity than you can morality. Both are tied to religious belief. It has always been in the Gods we choose, and the manner in which we worship them that nations found a commonalty. History is the precedent. If there is a complete absence of religion can we expect a different result ? Truth is you can't legislate faith or belief. What we really need to do is decide. Sadly I can't see that happening anytime soon. It hasn't happened in thousands of years, at least not on a global scale, but perhaps it will one day. Maybe that world will be called America. It's a beautiful dream isn't it ?
No comments:
Post a Comment